Upload
priorsmart
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 1/7
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ELCO, INC., DANIEL A. GUERETTE, )
and JOEL E. GUERETTE, )
)Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) COMPLAINT )
RICHARD E. WENGREN, JR. and )
FIN TECHNOLOGY, LLC, ))
Defendants, )
NOW COME Plaintiffs Elco, Inc., Daniel A. Guerette, and Joel E. Guerette, by and
through undersigned counsel and hereby Complains against Defendants Richard E. Wengren, Jr.
and Fin Technology, LLC as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Elco, Inc. is a Maine corporation with a principal place of business in
Lewiston, County of Androscoggin, and State of Maine.
2. Plaintiff Daniel A. Guerette is an individual and resident of the County of
Androscoggin and State of Maine. Plaintiff Daniel E. Guerette is the President of Elco, Inc.
3. Plaintiff Joel E. Guerette is an individual and resident of the County of
Androscoggin and State of Maine. Plaintiff Joel E. Guerette is the Vice President of Elco, Inc.
4. Defendant Richard E. Wengren, Jr. (hereinafter “Wengren”) is an individual and
resident of the County of Cumberland, and State of Maine. Defendant Richard E. Wengren, Jr.
is the managing member of Fin Technology, LLC.
5. Defendant Fin Technology, LLC is a Maine limited liability company with a
place of business in Freeport, County of Cumberland, and State of Maine.
JURISDICTION
Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 2/7
6. This Court has jurisdiction over Counts I and II pursuant to 28 USC § 1338
because they involve the application of 35 U.S.C. § 256.
7. This Court has jurisdiction over Counts III and IV pursuant to 28 USC § 1338(b).
FACTS
8. In or around December of 2006, Wengren submitted a provisional patent
application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for a fouling removal system for
jet drive water intake (the “provisional patent”).
9. The provisional patent contained thirty-two claims.
10.
The prototype of the fouling removal system did not operate as intended and
Wengren lacked the engineering knowledge, resources, and skills to make it operational.
11. In or around late 2006, Wengren contacted the Plaintiffs to form a partnership for
the redesign and reinvention of fouling removal system that would operate as intended.
12. A partnership was formed whereby the Plaintiffs Daniel and Joel Guerette agreed
to utilize their individual knowledge, skills, and the resources as well as the resources of their
corporation, Plaintiff Elco, Inc. to invent and engineer certain modifications which would enable
the fouling removal system to function.
13. Plaintiffs Daniel and Joel Guerette, individually and utilizing the resources of
Elco, Inc., invented and engineered modifications which made the original fouling removal
system operational.
14. In or around June of 2007, Wengren submitted a utility patent application to the
United States Patent and Trademark Office which incorporated Plaintiffs’ unique inventions
(Patent #1).
Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 3/7
15. Patent #1 is identified by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Patent
Number US7377826B1.
16. Patent #1 specifically incorporated Plaintiffs Joel and Daniel Guerette’s
inventions including, but not limited to, certain inventions set forth in Claims 10, 27, 30, 31, and
32.
17. Despite incorporating Joel and Daniel Guerette’s inventions in Patent #1,
Wengren failed to name them as co-inventors in his utility patent application.
18. Although functional, the fouling removal system design under Patent #1 was
flawed.
19. When confronted with his failure to include Daniel and Joel Guerette as co-
inventors, Wengren admitted the error but the parties agreed that the fouling removal system
needed an entirely new designed which would required a second patent.
20. Rather than incur the expense of modifying the inventorship on Patent #1, the
parties agreed that the redesign would be patented; both patents would be transferred to a new
limited liability company to be known as Fin Technology, LLC; and that Wengren, Daniel
Guerette, and Joel Guerette would all be equal shareholders in Fin Technology, LLC.
21. In the following years, Joel Guerette and Daniel Guerette, utilizing the resources
of Elco, Inc, invented and engineered a new prototype of the fouling removal system.
22. In consideration for the resources and materials provided by Elco, Inc., the parties
agreed that Elco, Inc. would have exclusive rights to manufacture the fouling removal system.
23. In or around May of 2008, Wengren filed articles of incorporation for the
formation of Fin Technology, LLC.
Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3
7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 4/7
24. In or about May of 2009, Wengren, unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, filed a utility
patent application for the newly designed fouling removal system invented and engineered by
Joel and Daniel Guerette (hereinafter Patent #2).
25. Patent #2 is identified by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Patent
Number US8007329B2.
26. In obtaining Patent #2, Wengren failed to identify Joel and Daniel Guerette as
inventors or co-inventors of Patent #2.
27. To date, Wengren has failed to transfer exclusive rights of Patent #1 and Patent #2
to Fin Technology, LLC and/or issue shares of the company to Joel and Daniel Guerette.
COUNT I
Plaintiffs Guerette v. Defendant Wengren
(Change of Inventorship on Patent #1 – 35 U.S.C. § 256)
28. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 27 above as if set forth
fully herein.
29. Joel and Daniel Guerette conceived and implemented improvements which were
incorporated into Patent #1.
30. Joel and Daniel Guerette are not presently named as co-inventors on Patent #1.
31. This court has authority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 to correct inventorship on a
patent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Daniel and Joel Guerette respectfully request that this Court
grant judgment in their favor and direct the Commissioner for Patents to issue a Certificate of
Correction naming them as co-inventors of Patent #1; award them costs including attorney’s
fees; and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4
7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 5/7
COUNT II
Plaintiffs Guerette v. Defendant Wengren
(Change of Inventorship on Patent #2 – 35 U.S.C. § 256)
32. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 31 above as if set forth
fully herein.
33. Joel and Daniel Guerette conceived and implemented the design of Patent #2.
34. Joel and Daniel Guerette are not presently named as inventors on Patent #2.
35. This court has authority pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 to correct inventorship on a
patent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Daniel and Joel Guerette respectfully request that this Court
grant judgment in their favor and direct the Commissioner for Patents to issue a Certificate of
Correction naming them as the sole co-inventors of Patent #2 or as co-inventors with Wengran;
award them costs including attorney’s fees; and grant such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and appropriate.
COUNT III
Plaintiffs Guerette v. Defendants Wengren and FIN Technology, LLC
(Unfair Competition – 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b))
36. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through ____ above as if set
forth fully herein.
37. Plaintiffs Joel and Daniel Guerette entered into a verbal agreement with Wengren
whereby Wengren agreed to transfer all interest in the fouling removal system which is
comprised of Patent #1 and Patent #2 to Fin Technology, LLC.
Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5
7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 6/7
38. Under the terms of the agreement, the parties agreed that Joel Guerette, Daniel
Guerette, and Wengren would be equal shareholder of Fin Technology, LLC.
39. Wengren has failed to transfer all interest in Patent #1 and Patent #2 to Fin
Technology, LLC and failed to issue equal shares to Joel and Daniel Guerette.
40. By failing to honor his obligation under the agreement, Wengren and Fin
Technology, LLC have engaged in unfair competition with Plaintiffs Joel and Daniel Guerette.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Daniel and Joel Guerette respectfully request that this Court
grant judgment in their favor and:
a.
Order Defendant Wengren to issues shares of Fin Technology, LLC to Plaintiffs
Daniel and Joel Guerette so as to make the three parties equal shareholders;
b. Order Defendant Wengren to transfer any and all interest in Patent #1 and Patent #2
to Fin Technology, LLC;
c. Award Plaintiffs their costs including attorney’s fees; and
d. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
COUNT IV
Plaintiff Elco, Inc. v. Defendants Wengren and FIN Technology, LLC
(Unfair Competition – 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b))
41. Plaintiffs hereby repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 40 above as if set forth
fully herein.
42. In consideration for the resources and materials expended by Elco, Inc. in the
design and manufacture of the fouling removal system, Wengren and Fin Technology, LLC
agreed that Elco, Inc. would have exclusive rights to manufacture the fouling removal system.
Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6
7/31/2019 Elco et. al. v. Wengren et. al.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elco-et-al-v-wengren-et-al 7/7
43. To date, Elco, Inc. has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in labor,
material, and resources in reliance upon Defendants’ representations.
44. By failing to honor their obligations under the agreement, Wengren and Fin
Technology, LLC have engaged in unfair competition against Elco, Inc.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Elco, Inc. respectfully request that this Court grant judgment in
their favor and:
e. Enjoin the Defendants from manufacturing the fouling removal system under Patent
#1 or Patent #2;
f.
In the alternative, order the Defendants to pay Elco, Inc. damages in an amount that
this Court deems just and appropriate;
g. Award Plaintiffs their costs including attorney’s fees; and
h. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs hereby
request a trial by jury in this matter.
Dated: June 6, 2012 /s/ Jason Dionne
Jason Dionne, Esquire (Bar No. 4317)Attorney for Plaintiffs
ISAACSON & RAYMOND, P.A.
P.O. Box 891, 75 Park StreetLewiston, ME 04243-0891
(207) 795-5000
Case 2:12-cv-00180-GZS Document 1 Filed 06/06/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7